You make twice the amount of force, which is split between two masses, including crush zones. There is a difference in force applied to each car depending the difference in mass.
80 km/h aren't like 2 cars that crashes every one at 40 km/h (40+40) ;-) Crash test simulate a real crash with another car of the same load and dimension. So a 64 km/h Euro NCAP's test is something like of 2 similar cars that impact at the speed of 64 km/h.
yep, you can built a car that "survives" an 120km/h impact but the people inside doesn´t. the human body isn´t buil for that deacseleration sorry for mi enklish ;D
You're wrong about it being equal to two cars colliding at 40kph. Just watch "Mythbusters - Car crash force" (here on youtube). Laws of physics (Newton's 3rd law to be precise) :)
Da bemüht sich der ADAC offensichtlich, die sehr guten Crash-Ergebnisse des Lagunas zu "relativieren". Rein zufällig wurde kein Audi, MB oder BMW gecrasht, sondern die im Sicherheitsbereich sehr erfolgreiche Konkurrenz. Autobild, AMS und ADAC etc. kann man nichts mehr glauben, wenn es um ausländische KFZ geht.
@VTolDL1000 common misunderstanding: the seen test is meant to demonstrate a collision between two cars of the same weight and the SAME SPEED. If you drive into a wall or into a car that approaches you with the same weight+speed is nearly the same. So 64kph against a wall = 64kph against another car approaching with 64. I think they should test with higher velocities just because they ALL are safe <=64kph now and since there's no real competition left.
you are wrong , you can not simply add the speeds. When two cars collide at 40kp/h the cars where abruptely decelerated from 40 to approximetely -5 kp/h. So the speed gap is 45kp/h and not 80.
A 80kp/H against a wall test is a completely different thing!
When two cars have frontal crash, one weight 1000kg, and another 2000kg, either going 50km/h, passengers in heavier car will feel forces like they go 25km/h, and those in lighter car like they go 75km/h... Physics... But just think what would be if they collide at 100km/h. 2000kg car passengers will feel forces like they go 50km/h, and 1000kg car like they go 150km/h!!!
that's the completely right argumentation. as i said above one can not simply add speeds in a two cars frontal crash, but you have to determine the deceleration.
@assailant85 I'm sure, but there is a lot of other facts, like construction, height of car etc. This is if both cars have totally the same structure and deformation zones, just weight difference.
Offset crash tests should be carried out at 100km/h, full frontal at 120km/h, pole tests at 90 (which is a pretty realistic speen since no car loses control at 40 -.- ) side test at 100km/h as well, front side at 90km/h and finally rollover crashes at 120km/h. Having said that, these speeds should be even higher since most cars can achieve speeds of up to 250km/h, while others as we all know can get to 340km/h no sweat....
why would you want to perform crash tests at such extreme speeds. The test results for most of your proposals are clear even before you perform the tests... death because of too much g-force - even when the crumble zone is ideal and the driver cabin remains intact - you will be dead. So why do you want to waste money for such tests? A car safety designer would say, preparing a car for higher speed crashes will make it stiffer in lower speed crashes (there is always a trade off)
@VTolDL1000 it was proven that 2 cars going 40km/h isnt 80km/h crash. Was on mythbusters when they tested it.They actualy hit a wall at 50mph and 100mph then crashed 2 cars into each other at 50mph and looked northing like the 100mph crash
Laguna did pretty good here, with few modifications i think it could reach 5 star again, even at that speed. Chinese crap cars crumple much more at 64kmh than Laguna at 80kmh.
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
WRONG!!! When you test car that hits a wall at 80kph, you make such forces as you crash 2 cars driving 80kph each!!! It's a phisics lesson from primary school, about action and reaction. Yes, as many other people, you would tell me that i'm wrong. So search on YT: Mythbusters Crash Force - they explained it well. Search also Saab Crash test, and don't write, when you don't know something.
@plastman12 it's about relative speed. wall is at 0 km/h, car is 80 km/h. so impact speed is 80 km/h. if two cars are travelling at -80km/h and 80km/h respectively, then their impact speed is 160km/h (80 - -80 = 160) (note that the sign represents the direction of the 1D vector). sorry bro, you're wrong.
@VTolDL1000 when u crash a car, the limit for surviving is at 70 kmph, because your organs gets crushed.. but hopefully, they'll make cars that you can survive a crash at 90-100 kmph.
@VTolDL1000 Not true! A crash with a wall at 80kmph is not the same as a crash between two cars running at 40 (is the same as a crash at 80kph between two identical cars hitting the same!). Learn some physics, especially the third Newton's law of motion.
@VTolDL1000 Not true! A crash with a wall at 80kmph is not the same as a crash between two cars running at 40 (is the same as a crash at 80kph between two identical cars hitting the same!). Learn some physics, especially the third Newton's law of motion.
@cosminnus Actually wrong man, sorry but two objects with the same mass traveling the same speed(ex 64 km/h) equals the same net impact force and speed(ex two vehicles of the same weight crashing into to one another at 64 km/h is the same as one vehicle crashing into a static object at 64 km/h) Mythbusters debunked that myth, also simple physics debunks it. Although total force compounded on the object(s) will differ if the mass of either two is not the same.
@VTolDL1000, and if you are interested here are some links with mercedes and bmw crash testing both cars, i am sure if you look at both video's you will find both cars are quite safe.
@VTolDL1000, If you look at trainiax's comment, it corrects your mistake in the assumption that a 80km/h crash test is equivalent to a 40 km/h head on crash with another car travelling the same speed. To answer your comment that the mercedes S class and bmw 7 series are not crash tested,the specified car manufacturer does conduct in house crash testing so they are still some of the safest cars around,the replacment cost of the car is just too high for independant's such as NCAP to access them.
A crash test into a wall at 80 km/h is the same as two cars hitting each other both moving at 80 km/h, not 40 km/h. The reason: the wall is immovable and therefore reflects the crash energy like an oncoming car, rather than absorbing half the energy as a stationary car would.
@borrelliantonio 100% TRUE. This crash is at 80KM/H not the 64 KM/H that Euro NCAP crash test at... This is ONE VERY VERY SAFE CAR INDEED!!!!!
Can you imagine if they tested a shitty little Fiat punto at this speed, You would be able to touch the front and back of the car at the same time. AWESOME SAFE CAR..THANK YOU RENAULT.
This is what ADAC does to put the competition for their german cars in a bad light. They performed a test to the Dacia Logan and rolled it over at 80 km/h. We've done the same test in Romania at 100 and 120 km/h and nothing happend. The same here, they were trying to prove that the Laguna is not so safe, and that at 80 km/h you would suffer injuries. But that's normal, and the Laguna performed really good. Why don't they repeat the test at 80 km/h with other german cars.
@Septyb They did it with Golf 5 at 100 km/h and it didnt do any worse than Laguna here.
The fact is, this Laguna III structure is weaker than older Laguna II structure. Look at the crash test of 2003 laguna. A- pillar intact, even the windshield didnt break. 2008 laguna A-pillar ruined, windshield broken completely, even the steering wheel and central console move back. Laguna II was crashed at 55 mph (90kmh) into a tree, and it crumpled less that new laguna at 45 mph hitting "soft" aluminum.
@Sitikkamies93 i agree in the USA the speed limit is 45 mph in most places but people drive like 60 mph so the iihs and nhtsa should use 50 mph aka 80 km/h for their tests.
@Sitikkamies93 TBH I think 64 kph is fine, because you need to consider that (usually) the driver brakes before impact, and the average-joe doesn't drive more than 90 kph (at least here in Europe).
The test would be much harder without a deformable barrier and without an offset, that allows the car to spin and turn away to one side. Fact is, that you cannot survive an impact at 70 kph against an hard, immovable object like a tree or a wall. Dead at impact as the human body cannot tolerate such amount of deceleration, it rips your heart off the aorta.
VTolDL1000 you are stupid. Thats not the same when two cars crash at 40 kmh each...that Laguna crashed at 80-90 kmh in a metall box wich was destroyed and the wall absorbed the rest of the shock. Two cars at 40 kmh each would come of much much better!
Do not forget that this is a 40% offset crash and not an 100% frontal crash. In case 2 cars crash frontal at 40 kph, chances are none would survive as deceleration is too high for human body.
1 Stern wegen dummer Allerweltssprüche und fehlender Fakten. Welch grandiose Erkenntnis, dass bei höherer Geschwindigkeit das Verletzungsrisiko steigt! Typisch ADAC eben.
If two cars each drive 80 kph and makes a frontal crash, it would be the same as if one car crashes into a wall with 80 kph - if we assume they have the same weight and absorbs equal amount of kinetic energy...
No, that is not the same as two cars colliding at 40 kph. 80 kph against a wall is like two identical cars each travelling 80 kph because every car has its own crumple zone. Basic school physics ftw^^
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Renault is the safest! and that is not a valid crash test because the at one point,the wall began to absorb the energy because the box was destroyed,plus .Fuck ADAC!
An Audi Q7 with "only" 4 star rating in EuroNCAP will be better than this Laguna. I dont know why EuroNCAP gives VW AG safe cars 4 star ratings, IIHS with same test conditions gives them Top Safety Pick.
Der Renault hat sich aber sehr wacker geschlagen für 80 km/h. Gegenüber 64 km/h ist der Energieumsatz immerhin um 50 % höher (Energiezunahme im Quadrat zur Geschwindigkeitszunahme).
Na ja. Ich erinnere mich noch an einen Crashtest bei Quarks & Co, bei dem ein Golf 5 mit 100 km/h gegen eine verformbare Barriere gecrasht wurde. Die Insassen hätten dann zwar kaum noch Überlebenschancen gehabt, aber die Fahrgastzelle sah deutlich besser aus als beim Laguna und das trotz nochmal 20 km/h mehr. Kann natürlich auch sein, dass der Laguna durch sein höheres Eigengewicht mehr zerstört wurde. Oder die Testumstände waren doch anders. Offset war er aber auf jden Fall auch.
Nun ist die Fahrgastzelle wichtig, weil sie den Überlebensraum sicherstellt, aber sie ist nicht alles. 1990 hat auto motor und sport mal mehrere Mittelklasseautos gecrasht (50 % Offset, 56 km/h, starre Barriere). Der Volvo 740 hielt zwar genauso stand wie der Mercedes 200, aber das Lenkrad war beim Volvo schlechter positioniert und härter. Also war der Volvo trotz guter Karosserie schlechter.
Das ist richtig. Ich bezog mich in diesem Fall auch nur auf die Fahrgastzelle. Der Fußraum im Golf z. B. war glaub ich ziemlich stark deformiert, da sich u. a. das Rad durch die Spritzwand gedrückt hat.
Sure. But on highways, speed is limited to 110-130 kmh in most countries (and some countries like Germany have no speed limits on their highways) plus there are people who disregard speed limits, so if you crash on a highway, you have great chances to die.
What the commentator was saying is that unsafe driving can push even the safest cars past their limits causing severe injury. He ends with "who drives defensively lives longer"
If you look more carefully than youll see that that blue box is totally crushed and the wall absorbed the energy...anyway very safe car..the safest and one more thing...the car was travelling maybe at 80kmh or more...because this idiots and gelous german testers hate the fact that they cant build safe cars..they cheated before
today cars are made for 64km/h crash test to reach 5 stars. to reach 5 stars in 80km/h crash test car must have stronger crumple zones. but the stronger crumple zones are, the more enegry passes to the passengers at low speed accident, because car stops faster. however, I think that cars should be made for 80-85 km/h crashes, at least. I think it's better to get more crash energy in lower speed crash, than to be crushed at high speed accident.
Not really....you probably wouldn't survive 100 km/h frontal crash anyway...because of the stopping force that would severely damage your internal organs.
maybe some competitiors want to tell you, to not buy new Laguna :) If they repeat this test 10 times, every time with the same result, it can be a measure
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i don't understand the reason for this crash!
every body know that with that speed 80kmh internal organ simply explode like the "aorta" will cut the connection between the heart and the person will begin internal bleeding.
Given the fact that energy increases exponentially to the speed I am very surprised by this result - I would have expected a completely destroyed car.
My point is, there was another test where they did the same test with a Golf V at 100 kph, and that car also maintained its shape reasonably well. I really think car safety is on an incredibly high standard now. The problem becomes more and more that the human body just cannot be stopped from 100 to 0 in the space a crumple zone can provide, and I want to see the man who comes up with a solution for that.
The solution is to have a car with a long front(bonnet), whitch will absorb the kinetic energy and dissipate it, slowing down the time interval in that the accident takes place and minimizing the force(whitch is the variation of the impulse divided by the time interval). The cars nowadays have a very soft engine room and a very stiff frame for the passanger room. One other solution was firstly implemented by Mercedes-Benz:the engine slides down under the car
its liuke from paper at higher speeds, renault and other "crappy" european cars are made solely for euroncap tests so deformation zones are adjusted to 64 km/h speeds, higher speed and passive safety is non existant!
only bix luxury cars like the mercedes S class,Audi A8,the new Bmw 7 series and the new lexus LS have very resistant crumple zones but still they will behave bad at speeds over 80 kilometers per hour.This test shows that manufacturers make the new cars to behave good at a 64 km per hour impact to reach a 5 star rating that is a good selling point.Laguna 3 was described as one of the safest cars on sell today but this test shows that all manufacturers have to do a lot of safety improvements.
Lol fuck renault
alexy709 6 days ago
lol nie mehr schuften bin so reich
JoeReginelg550 3 weeks ago
80/64=1.25 1.25*1.25=1.625
At 80 km/h the kinetic energy is 62.5% higher
SuperThe86 1 month ago
renault laguna 3
erhud 3 months ago
"very safe" made in renault(((((((((((((
adimaj78 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
if a crash test was at 40mph, it simulates 2 cars going at 40 mph each. as there is more crush zone to absorb impact
triggerhappybullets 4 months ago
@triggerhappybullets
Not exactly.
You make twice the amount of force, which is split between two masses, including crush zones. There is a difference in force applied to each car depending the difference in mass.
Popikawaii 4 months ago
Renault-safe car !
TheCarManiac18 4 months ago
nun übrigens hab was geiles gefunden habs bei mir stehn
SindyEulahkd723 5 months ago
add air back to back seat
flipper2562 5 months ago
ha ich hab was unanständiges entdeckt
ArlyneRuthevi364 6 months ago
@VTolDL1000
80 km/h aren't like 2 cars that crashes every one at 40 km/h (40+40) ;-) Crash test simulate a real crash with another car of the same load and dimension. So a 64 km/h Euro NCAP's test is something like of 2 similar cars that impact at the speed of 64 km/h.
JGianTV 8 months ago 4
@JGianTV Finally,someone else who knows a bit of physics !
blackhawk192 6 months ago
german car BMW at 80 km/h
hbvl.be/nieuws/binnenland/aid1057283/heel-wat-ravage-na-dodelijk-ongeval-in-diksmuide.aspx
215alessio 8 months ago
yep, you can built a car that "survives" an 120km/h impact but the people inside doesn´t. the human body isn´t buil for that deacseleration sorry for mi enklish ;D
puhaltaja 9 months ago
@VTolDL1000 Because you cannot afford it anyway
throxnet 9 months ago
1:28 left man got a hit by driver door.
Nachbarss 9 months ago
@VTolDL1000
You're wrong about it being equal to two cars colliding at 40kph. Just watch "Mythbusters - Car crash force" (here on youtube). Laws of physics (Newton's 3rd law to be precise) :)
dsego84 10 months ago
"very safe" .... made in renault ((((((((
adimaj78 11 months ago
Da bemüht sich der ADAC offensichtlich, die sehr guten Crash-Ergebnisse des Lagunas zu "relativieren". Rein zufällig wurde kein Audi, MB oder BMW gecrasht, sondern die im Sicherheitsbereich sehr erfolgreiche Konkurrenz. Autobild, AMS und ADAC etc. kann man nichts mehr glauben, wenn es um ausländische KFZ geht.
cu1000 11 months ago
@VTolDL1000 common misunderstanding: the seen test is meant to demonstrate a collision between two cars of the same weight and the SAME SPEED. If you drive into a wall or into a car that approaches you with the same weight+speed is nearly the same. So 64kph against a wall = 64kph against another car approaching with 64. I think they should test with higher velocities just because they ALL are safe <=64kph now and since there's no real competition left.
assailant85 11 months ago
@VTolDL1000
you are wrong , you can not simply add the speeds. When two cars collide at 40kp/h the cars where abruptely decelerated from 40 to approximetely -5 kp/h. So the speed gap is 45kp/h and not 80.
A 80kp/H against a wall test is a completely different thing!
Andreas1986xyz 11 months ago
looks good for such a speed
TiptronicSS 1 year ago
When two cars have frontal crash, one weight 1000kg, and another 2000kg, either going 50km/h, passengers in heavier car will feel forces like they go 25km/h, and those in lighter car like they go 75km/h... Physics... But just think what would be if they collide at 100km/h. 2000kg car passengers will feel forces like they go 50km/h, and 1000kg car like they go 150km/h!!!
VladimirMitrovic 1 year ago 2
@VladimirMitrovic
that's the completely right argumentation. as i said above one can not simply add speeds in a two cars frontal crash, but you have to determine the deceleration.
Andreas1986xyz 11 months ago
@VladimirMitrovic you're sure about your physics? I think it's sqrt(2)*v, not just 1,5 times. (1/sqrt(2) instead of 0,5)
assailant85 11 months ago
@assailant85 I'm sure, but there is a lot of other facts, like construction, height of car etc. This is if both cars have totally the same structure and deformation zones, just weight difference.
VladimirMitrovic 10 months ago
Why ADAC tests french car-why not VW or other german car?
baader999 1 year ago
Because german cars better!!!
antpepeln 1 year ago
@antpepeln Are you sure? The Renault Laguna is the first car of the World to have 5 starts at crash test Euro Ncap!
ArnaudTarare 1 year ago
@ArnaudTarare that's just wrong.
assailant85 11 months ago
Before a crash you will hit the brake. Of course its mor realistic that you drive 80 kmh, but I think to crash with 50 km/h is a good average speed
CisBanger 1 year ago
Offset crash tests should be carried out at 100km/h, full frontal at 120km/h, pole tests at 90 (which is a pretty realistic speen since no car loses control at 40 -.- ) side test at 100km/h as well, front side at 90km/h and finally rollover crashes at 120km/h. Having said that, these speeds should be even higher since most cars can achieve speeds of up to 250km/h, while others as we all know can get to 340km/h no sweat....
Captn777 1 year ago
@Captn777,
why would you want to perform crash tests at such extreme speeds. The test results for most of your proposals are clear even before you perform the tests... death because of too much g-force - even when the crumble zone is ideal and the driver cabin remains intact - you will be dead. So why do you want to waste money for such tests? A car safety designer would say, preparing a car for higher speed crashes will make it stiffer in lower speed crashes (there is always a trade off)
fn132788 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000 it was proven that 2 cars going 40km/h isnt 80km/h crash. Was on mythbusters when they tested it.They actualy hit a wall at 50mph and 100mph then crashed 2 cars into each other at 50mph and looked northing like the 100mph crash
antonyr123 1 year ago
Laguna did pretty good here, with few modifications i think it could reach 5 star again, even at that speed. Chinese crap cars crumple much more at 64kmh than Laguna at 80kmh.
JKD01CRO 1 year ago 3
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
JKD01CRO 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
JKD01CRO 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VTolDL1000 You are wrong, 80 kmh doesen't mean that would be 40+40kmh with 2 cars crash, it would be also 80+80kmh crash. This barrier is deformable, but not mobile, if that was some car standing instead, after impact it would move behind and absorb a lot of energy. Check frontal test explanation on EuroNCAP website or check SAAB vs SAAB crash test at 60+60kmh. But, i agree, crash test should be performed at higher speeds, nowadays 70-80% of cars reach 5 star ratings.
JKD01CRO 1 year ago
Comment removed
JKD01CRO 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000 Two cars crashing at 40km/h each, is similar to crashing with an unmovable object in 40km/h...not 80km/h..
robrandt 1 year ago 2
@VTolDL1000
WRONG!!! When you test car that hits a wall at 80kph, you make such forces as you crash 2 cars driving 80kph each!!! It's a phisics lesson from primary school, about action and reaction. Yes, as many other people, you would tell me that i'm wrong. So search on YT: Mythbusters Crash Force - they explained it well. Search also Saab Crash test, and don't write, when you don't know something.
plastman12 1 year ago 15
@plastman12 it's about relative speed. wall is at 0 km/h, car is 80 km/h. so impact speed is 80 km/h. if two cars are travelling at -80km/h and 80km/h respectively, then their impact speed is 160km/h (80 - -80 = 160) (note that the sign represents the direction of the 1D vector). sorry bro, you're wrong.
Nickopops 1 year ago
@Nickopops Sry, but plastman 12 is right. You're wrong.
numsedoktor 1 year ago
@numsedoktor Nothing I said is incorrect. I didn't comment at all on the forces involved in the crash, or anything other than velocity.
Nickopops 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000 when u crash a car, the limit for surviving is at 70 kmph, because your organs gets crushed.. but hopefully, they'll make cars that you can survive a crash at 90-100 kmph.
stonee206 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VTolDL1000 Not true! A crash with a wall at 80kmph is not the same as a crash between two cars running at 40 (is the same as a crash at 80kph between two identical cars hitting the same!). Learn some physics, especially the third Newton's law of motion.
cosminnus 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000 Not true! A crash with a wall at 80kmph is not the same as a crash between two cars running at 40 (is the same as a crash at 80kph between two identical cars hitting the same!). Learn some physics, especially the third Newton's law of motion.
cosminnus 1 year ago 4
@cosminnus Actually wrong man, sorry but two objects with the same mass traveling the same speed(ex 64 km/h) equals the same net impact force and speed(ex two vehicles of the same weight crashing into to one another at 64 km/h is the same as one vehicle crashing into a static object at 64 km/h) Mythbusters debunked that myth, also simple physics debunks it. Although total force compounded on the object(s) will differ if the mass of either two is not the same.
Atheist18505 1 year ago
very impressive
cata18tm 1 year ago
at least is better than chinese cars :D
thejecs9 1 year ago
nowadays people always rush to go anywhere, how about test every single car with 100 km/h??
Jake7206 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000, and if you are interested here are some links with mercedes and bmw crash testing both cars, i am sure if you look at both video's you will find both cars are quite safe.
/watch?v=WWpL4UdWkQM&feature=related
/watch?v=AYdp_MzHo_g
theguy459 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000, If you look at trainiax's comment, it corrects your mistake in the assumption that a 80km/h crash test is equivalent to a 40 km/h head on crash with another car travelling the same speed. To answer your comment that the mercedes S class and bmw 7 series are not crash tested,the specified car manufacturer does conduct in house crash testing so they are still some of the safest cars around,the replacment cost of the car is just too high for independant's such as NCAP to access them.
theguy459 1 year ago
@VTolDL1000
A crash test into a wall at 80 km/h is the same as two cars hitting each other both moving at 80 km/h, not 40 km/h. The reason: the wall is immovable and therefore reflects the crash energy like an oncoming car, rather than absorbing half the energy as a stationary car would.
trainiax 1 year ago
if you try at 80 km-h with a fiat car it will explode in one trilion pieces.....renault cars are very very good
borrelliantonio 1 year ago
@borrelliantonio 100% TRUE. This crash is at 80KM/H not the 64 KM/H that Euro NCAP crash test at... This is ONE VERY VERY SAFE CAR INDEED!!!!!
Can you imagine if they tested a shitty little Fiat punto at this speed, You would be able to touch the front and back of the car at the same time. AWESOME SAFE CAR..THANK YOU RENAULT.
matsui2001 1 year ago 3
@VTolDL1000 cause mercedes+bwm would not be better - i guess :)
fjmi 1 year ago
This is what ADAC does to put the competition for their german cars in a bad light. They performed a test to the Dacia Logan and rolled it over at 80 km/h. We've done the same test in Romania at 100 and 120 km/h and nothing happend. The same here, they were trying to prove that the Laguna is not so safe, and that at 80 km/h you would suffer injuries. But that's normal, and the Laguna performed really good. Why don't they repeat the test at 80 km/h with other german cars.
Septyb 1 year ago
@Septyb They did it with Golf 5 at 100 km/h and it didnt do any worse than Laguna here.
The fact is, this Laguna III structure is weaker than older Laguna II structure. Look at the crash test of 2003 laguna. A- pillar intact, even the windshield didnt break. 2008 laguna A-pillar ruined, windshield broken completely, even the steering wheel and central console move back. Laguna II was crashed at 55 mph (90kmh) into a tree, and it crumpled less that new laguna at 45 mph hitting "soft" aluminum.
derbigpr500 1 year ago
Please. Drive safely.
satrianman 1 year ago
"Doch der Versuch zeigt, dass die Insassen auch in sehr sicheren Autos nicht unverwundbar sind" Vielen Dank, jetzt sind wir alle viel schlauer.
PlaygroundJoe 1 year ago
I think EuroNCAP should use that 80km/h always. It's much more realistic speed. :)
Sitikkamies93 2 years ago 126
@Sitikkamies93 i agree in the USA the speed limit is 45 mph in most places but people drive like 60 mph so the iihs and nhtsa should use 50 mph aka 80 km/h for their tests.
Capthunter95 1 year ago
@Sitikkamies93 It really isn't, at that speed head on collisions usually result death due to the Gforces messing with your internal organs.
plusgood15 1 year ago
@Sitikkamies93 or watch "Crash Test 100 km-h VW Golf "
modellbahner2000 1 year ago
@Sitikkamies93 You're right. But almost no car would pass the test then. :)
mallardstube 1 year ago
@Sitikkamies93 TBH I think 64 kph is fine, because you need to consider that (usually) the driver brakes before impact, and the average-joe doesn't drive more than 90 kph (at least here in Europe).
mariyuso 3 months ago
@VTolDL1000
The test would be much harder without a deformable barrier and without an offset, that allows the car to spin and turn away to one side. Fact is, that you cannot survive an impact at 70 kph against an hard, immovable object like a tree or a wall. Dead at impact as the human body cannot tolerate such amount of deceleration, it rips your heart off the aorta.
GoldsteinBaruch 2 years ago
VTolDL1000 you are stupid. Thats not the same when two cars crash at 40 kmh each...that Laguna crashed at 80-90 kmh in a metall box wich was destroyed and the wall absorbed the rest of the shock. Two cars at 40 kmh each would come of much much better!
legioner9 2 years ago
@legioner9
Do not forget that this is a 40% offset crash and not an 100% frontal crash. In case 2 cars crash frontal at 40 kph, chances are none would survive as deceleration is too high for human body.
GoldsteinBaruch 2 years ago
1 Stern wegen dummer Allerweltssprüche und fehlender Fakten. Welch grandiose Erkenntnis, dass bei höherer Geschwindigkeit das Verletzungsrisiko steigt! Typisch ADAC eben.
GoldsteinBaruch 2 years ago
If two cars each drive 80 kph and makes a frontal crash, it would be the same as if one car crashes into a wall with 80 kph - if we assume they have the same weight and absorbs equal amount of kinetic energy...
numsedoktor 2 years ago
@VTolDL1000
No, that is not the same as two cars colliding at 40 kph. 80 kph against a wall is like two identical cars each travelling 80 kph because every car has its own crumple zone. Basic school physics ftw^^
captmcneil 2 years ago
Chinese car are tested at this speed instead the normal euro standard at 64km
wyunaboy 2 years ago
yeah lol
jaffacake1578 2 years ago
Hier wird ein Renault Laguna mit 90 km/h gegen einen Baum gecrasht:
watch?v=2fLg8eQaPyE
Robex 2 years ago 3
RENAULT best
iceboys 2 years ago 6
@iceboys this shows the true safety of french cars especially renault.
Capthunter95 1 year ago
@iceboys renault best in FUNERAL MARCH!
andreescumihai 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Renault is the safest! and that is not a valid crash test because the at one point,the wall began to absorb the energy because the box was destroyed,plus .Fuck ADAC!
legioner9 2 years ago
you sound like an asshole.
jcadlols 2 years ago
french cars are familyfriendly
ChiLLaTzE35 2 years ago 3
Yup, kills them...
stonee206 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a piece of shit.
AgUsAquiNO 2 years ago
English subtitles please.
NorwegianCrows 2 years ago
thank you for the answer again!:D:D
halmirys 2 years ago
An Audi Q7 with "only" 4 star rating in EuroNCAP will be better than this Laguna. I dont know why EuroNCAP gives VW AG safe cars 4 star ratings, IIHS with same test conditions gives them Top Safety Pick.
AgUsAquiNO 2 years ago
Der Renault hat sich aber sehr wacker geschlagen für 80 km/h. Gegenüber 64 km/h ist der Energieumsatz immerhin um 50 % höher (Energiezunahme im Quadrat zur Geschwindigkeitszunahme).
eltfell 2 years ago 2
Na ja. Ich erinnere mich noch an einen Crashtest bei Quarks & Co, bei dem ein Golf 5 mit 100 km/h gegen eine verformbare Barriere gecrasht wurde. Die Insassen hätten dann zwar kaum noch Überlebenschancen gehabt, aber die Fahrgastzelle sah deutlich besser aus als beim Laguna und das trotz nochmal 20 km/h mehr. Kann natürlich auch sein, dass der Laguna durch sein höheres Eigengewicht mehr zerstört wurde. Oder die Testumstände waren doch anders. Offset war er aber auf jden Fall auch.
swordfish1986 2 years ago
An den Test erinnere ich mich auch.
Nun ist die Fahrgastzelle wichtig, weil sie den Überlebensraum sicherstellt, aber sie ist nicht alles. 1990 hat auto motor und sport mal mehrere Mittelklasseautos gecrasht (50 % Offset, 56 km/h, starre Barriere). Der Volvo 740 hielt zwar genauso stand wie der Mercedes 200, aber das Lenkrad war beim Volvo schlechter positioniert und härter. Also war der Volvo trotz guter Karosserie schlechter.
eltfell 2 years ago
Das ist richtig. Ich bezog mich in diesem Fall auch nur auf die Fahrgastzelle. Der Fußraum im Golf z. B. war glaub ich ziemlich stark deformiert, da sich u. a. das Rad durch die Spritzwand gedrückt hat.
swordfish1986 2 years ago
After seeing this, I assume that there is no car in which the passangers would survive in a crash at 100 km/h.
protector1990 2 years ago
maybe thats why we have speed limits?
Steggman 2 years ago 2
Sure. But on highways, speed is limited to 110-130 kmh in most countries (and some countries like Germany have no speed limits on their highways) plus there are people who disregard speed limits, so if you crash on a highway, you have great chances to die.
protector1990 2 years ago
Agreed.
Steggman 2 years ago
the new volvo xc60 and xc90 also ford taurus
jaffacake1578 2 years ago
thank you so much,maerzen 77!!!
halmirys 2 years ago
why does it looks so different with the EuroNCap and ADAC???
maybe different speed
halmirys 2 years ago
yes, a bit faster, 80 km/h ...
maerzen77 2 years ago
At EuroNCap they crash cars at 64 km/h, while this crash is performed at 80 km/h.
protector1990 2 years ago
Comment removed
SjokoLemon 2 years ago
yes ncap at 40 (64kph)mph adac at 50 mph (80kph)
jaffacake1578 2 years ago
Not bad, not bad at all! =) The ones in the rear seats didn't look like party though, but still..
Invalidstyrkan 2 years ago
Renaults r the safest. Period.
kylio85 2 years ago 5
it depends what you hit, becouse if you hit a fiat Seicento with this car at 80Km/h you would be fine
Christopher2398 2 years ago
my buddy hit a tree at 75 km/h in a 323 and he was ok
trucksoner 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BRAVO ADAC!
Renault IS NOT "very safe"!
adimaj78 2 years ago
Yeah, right. Show that test any other car available on the market as of today, i defy you to find anything that would come out better...
KapsGTA 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
kylio85 2 years ago
U r very stupid, u know this, huh?!
kylio85 2 years ago
Fuck you, STUPID italyan mafia!
adimaj78 2 years ago
U DON'T deserve to b answered, u cannot even write down in english!
Ààhàhàhàhàh!! Idiot...
kylio85 2 years ago
Il nous montre pas les allemandes, et encore moins les voitures de luxe... Pauvre Laguna! :-(
deudeuchmania 2 years ago 3
What the commentator was saying is that unsafe driving can push even the safest cars past their limits causing severe injury. He ends with "who drives defensively lives longer"
ghostrider284 2 years ago
sono daccorddissimo con lui.
alfetta91 2 years ago
Now after they said that laguna hasnt done well in the test, lets see how a Passat does...or Mondeo, or even Insignia. Im very interested.
derbigpr500 3 years ago 3
@derbigpr500 I don't think the germans will show you that.
UHF43 1 year ago
quite safe car. euro ncap front test is 64 km/h and laguna is up against 80 km/h so good effort from renault :)
2reg911 3 years ago 4
If you look more carefully than youll see that that blue box is totally crushed and the wall absorbed the energy...anyway very safe car..the safest and one more thing...the car was travelling maybe at 80kmh or more...because this idiots and gelous german testers hate the fact that they cant build safe cars..they cheated before
legioner9 3 years ago
Ouch...safer cars please!!!
chuzzle84 3 years ago
The German guy is angry because they're talking about a Renault.
That's how he sounds ha.
coreydl2008 3 years ago 4
Despite that modern cars are designed for 64kmh is could be interesting to see what brand has the better resistance at a speed over the tested.
But 80 kmh is the normal speed who the drunk people of the saturday night die.
There is no safety without brain.
Dante1969 3 years ago 2
but only 20% of fatal accidents r caused by drunk drivers(in aus) so the other 80% should stay of the road itd be much safer>LOL
shorty261186 2 years ago
today cars are made for 64km/h crash test to reach 5 stars. to reach 5 stars in 80km/h crash test car must have stronger crumple zones. but the stronger crumple zones are, the more enegry passes to the passengers at low speed accident, because car stops faster. however, I think that cars should be made for 80-85 km/h crashes, at least. I think it's better to get more crash energy in lower speed crash, than to be crushed at high speed accident.
calendar11 3 years ago
crash test should be 100kmph
vimetenec 3 years ago
Not really....you probably wouldn't survive 100 km/h frontal crash anyway...because of the stopping force that would severely damage your internal organs.
derbigpr500 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Just buy VW !!
Tromi1986 3 years ago
@Tromi1986 That's what this video is intended for. The german television shows "how bad" foreing cars are, but refuse to show how german cars behave.
UHF43 1 year ago
the euroncap impact are 64 kmh frontal Off set and Lateral 55kmh
not 80 KMH
legacyrally555 3 years ago
maybe some competitiors want to tell you, to not buy new Laguna :) If they repeat this test 10 times, every time with the same result, it can be a measure
plusz2 3 years ago
wow wow wow! Slow down thare! The Renult Laguna is a safe car but why does the the drivers side of the winsheld bend??
was thare a defect in the car???
everythingkid 3 years ago
Euro NCAP test should be performed at 80km/h so that we see the difference between vehicles. there are too many 5 star cars nowadays
sujajajjaakakajjs 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
don't worry it's safe.
whattheheck1000 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i don't understand the reason for this crash!
every body know that with that speed 80kmh internal organ simply explode like the "aorta" will cut the connection between the heart and the person will begin internal bleeding.
francescobra 3 years ago
niech zrobia crash test z predkoscia 100 km/h.
abcd6151248piszczek 3 years ago
Given the fact that energy increases exponentially to the speed I am very surprised by this result - I would have expected a completely destroyed car.
captmcneil 3 years ago
konetic energy increases as square with velocity, E = 1/2 * m * v^2; m .. mass, v .. velocity
kovarm1 3 years ago
Yes, my bad, potentially.
My point is, there was another test where they did the same test with a Golf V at 100 kph, and that car also maintained its shape reasonably well. I really think car safety is on an incredibly high standard now. The problem becomes more and more that the human body just cannot be stopped from 100 to 0 in the space a crumple zone can provide, and I want to see the man who comes up with a solution for that.
captmcneil 3 years ago
The solution is to have a car with a long front(bonnet), whitch will absorb the kinetic energy and dissipate it, slowing down the time interval in that the accident takes place and minimizing the force(whitch is the variation of the impulse divided by the time interval). The cars nowadays have a very soft engine room and a very stiff frame for the passanger room. One other solution was firstly implemented by Mercedes-Benz:the engine slides down under the car
diesselxxl16 3 years ago
Lol, the door handle ripped off when they tried to open it
alexkvaskov 3 years ago 2
but the 64km test is + to 2 cars crashing head on at 55km each (110km)
still pretty bad!
echatz 3 years ago
this is bad, renault laguna II seems to have stronger body than new one. New one at 64 km/h breaks a lot more than old one.
derbigpr500 3 years ago
EuroNCAP Suxx.. This is crashtest
N15M07 3 years ago
ich verstehe sowieso nicht wieso crash tests nur mit 64km/h gemacht werden... finde die geschwindigkeit von 80km/h wäre heutzutage angemessener...
SlimXmilS 3 years ago
Doch eh nicht schlecht...Fahrer nicht eingeklemmt! Viele ältere Autos (BMW E46) haben bei 64 km/h schon ähnlich hohe Belastungswerte..
WeberMax21 3 years ago
Die Energie steigt überproportional zum Speed,
also klar!
runnerbaba 3 years ago
its liuke from paper at higher speeds, renault and other "crappy" european cars are made solely for euroncap tests so deformation zones are adjusted to 64 km/h speeds, higher speed and passive safety is non existant!
esshoul 3 years ago
only bix luxury cars like the mercedes S class,Audi A8,the new Bmw 7 series and the new lexus LS have very resistant crumple zones but still they will behave bad at speeds over 80 kilometers per hour.This test shows that manufacturers make the new cars to behave good at a 64 km per hour impact to reach a 5 star rating that is a good selling point.Laguna 3 was described as one of the safest cars on sell today but this test shows that all manufacturers have to do a lot of safety improvements.
felix911turbo 3 years ago
check landrover crash test: is big, is heavy and is rubbish
maniek133 3 years ago 2
you talk about fifth gear's land rover discovery vs renault espace test? or about the older freelander?
felix911turbo 3 years ago